"how would women use our protocol?"
"oh, right, women, shit. uh, I guess they could use it for dating men?"
"yeah, that's a pretty good one, any other ideas?"
"do women even do anything else?"
"hmmm... I guess not that I'm aware of, no"
"all right then let's go with that one"
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
Buttcoin
434 readers
28 users here now
Buttcoin is the future of online butts. Buttcoin is a peer-to-peer butt. Peer-to-peer means that no central authority issues new butts or tracks butts.
A community for hurling ordure at cryptocurrency/blockchain dweebs of all sorts. We are only here for debate as long as it amuses us. Meme stocks are also on topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
user story: "as a woman, I want it in pink"
This is likely from one of the (many) DID specs.
Which was basically the W3C going like "You want a new spec for shoving arbitrary data and arbitrary protocols into URL-like strings for blockchain-y sorts of reasons? And a seperate spec for each individual case you come up with? Sure go for it! Have fun kids :D".
It's the worst set of specifications I've ever looked at, and I've read CSS Device Adaptation Module Level 1's non-normative meta viewport parsing algorithm so...
Since I can't El Goog search the story it was probably removed from whatever document it was in at some point. I did find the DID Use-Case spec but I couldn't find this particular story in it. https://www.w3.org/TR/did-use-cases/#uc
DID is fucking amazing. I spent years following the blockchain identity scam, which is basically to sell centralized management of a "decentralised" identity system, such that you can't be blamed if it doesn't work and you get paid.
Decentralised identity is a scam. Either customer service is possible, meaning central control, or you lose your entire bureaucratic identity when you drop your iphone in a puddle. It turns out the dreams of libertarians are incoherent
The DID spec is basically not specified - anything that does anything is per-vendor. So for a long time, the only implementation of DID was Microsoft's, with a hard dependency on an Active Directory server at Azure.
Bluesky was started by rationalist neoreactionary coiners, so they tried blockchaining. They needed an ID spec and thought "DID's a spec, right?" The Bluesky (or AT Protocol) implementation is that your ID on their completely decentralised social network - decentralisation coming real soon! - is not name@server, but a hash stored at a central server that Bluesky runs. Now you might think that Bluesky's completely decentralised social network has extremely centralised control of a very important aspect of things. Bluesky's implementation has no blockchainery left to it - but they directly credit the dumb W3C spec.